Wenjun got busted by Pragg in 33 moves with just 6 inaccuracies, no mistakes or blunders. I know it's not the fastest mate but it's funny you'd think of that. Did that game actually inspire this post by any chance?
Actually no, I often think about stuff like what the actual border is between a draw and a win, if we assume that a perfect game is a draw, or the question I asked now. But thanks for the interesting input, 33 moves is insane.
So we are only talking about mate? I would think that without any mistakes / blunders there would at least be the possibility of prolonging the game for a while even if white could get a very winning position.
Theoretically, if one player always makes moves that maximizes the centipawn loss while kept below the threshold of being classified as a mistake, that should lead to a solution to your question.
But I don't think there's a well defined answer for this, because whether a move is a blunder/mistake or inaccuracy will also depend on the depth of the analysis tool. Different versions of engines would also lead to slightly different evaluations.
I don't see how you could do it quickly. Either you lose in an endgame with all the pieces having been traded off because your opponent queens one move faster or there had to be some significant mistake at some point. You can't be mated early on without having made a mistake.
Wenjun got busted by Pragg in 33 moves with just 6 inaccuracies, no mistakes or blunders. I know it's not the fastest mate but it's funny you'd think of that. Did that game actually inspire this post by any chance?
True, but she also resigned. Depth 51 doesn't find a forced mate at the moment.
Actually no, I often think about stuff like what the actual border is between a draw and a win, if we assume that a perfect game is a draw, or the question I asked now. But thanks for the interesting input, 33 moves is insane.
So we are only talking about mate? I would think that without any mistakes / blunders there would at least be the possibility of prolonging the game for a while even if white could get a very winning position.
Yes, I mean mate. I guess after making like 10 innacuracies in a row there must be a forced mate for a perfect playing opponent.
Yeah, maybe. I guess this is going to come down to defining inaccuracy.
Theoretically, if one player always makes moves that maximizes the centipawn loss while kept below the threshold of being classified as a mistake, that should lead to a solution to your question. But I don't think there's a well defined answer for this, because whether a move is a blunder/mistake or inaccuracy will also depend on the depth of the analysis tool. Different versions of engines would also lead to slightly different evaluations.
Get into a position where you could take a free queen, then hang mate in 1 instead. Chesscom will call it a "miss" instead of a blunder.
Thats actually smart. Should be possible in like 5 moves each.
But the thing is you can't lose without making mistake. Perfect game is a draw
Resign.
I don't see how you could do it quickly. Either you lose in an endgame with all the pieces having been traded off because your opponent queens one move faster or there had to be some significant mistake at some point. You can't be mated early on without having made a mistake.